Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
1. This only works if you assume that God is ONLY ABLE to foresee because he first predetermines... thus he has NO KNOWLEDGE of anything unless it is something he has predeterimined.
- In this line of reasoning, God's predeterminism comes first, before his foreknowing.
- Thus God only SEES INTO THE FUTURE because he knows his own plans... and by this logic, we could even postulate that he doesn't really see the future at all; he simply has awareness of his own plans.
2. There is no logical reason to make this assumption, that God only foresees what he has first predetermined... that predetermining causes his foreknowing.
3. There is no logical reason to assume foreknowing only means foreknowing if there is first a sizable helping of predeterminism to create the foreknowing.
4. Just doesn't work. There is no logical necessity for the foreknowing of an omniscient being to be caused by anything at all.
5. If a divine being is omniscient, and knows all, then he simply knows all. We have no logical grounds to state he only knows all because he first predetermined all.
6. Reiterate: We have no logical grounds to affirm his foreknowing can only exist if it is caused by something else.
This would actually diminish his property of omniscience, and lessen it to a mere contingent property... it would no longer be a necessary property as it would be contingent on something else.
This would greatly diminish his divine and necessary property of omniscience.
7. Furthermore, we can go to scripture and make a case against this.
There are other arguments to be made against this first leg, before we even move on to the other leg, or before we discus the way these two legs sit in antithesis... but we don't require a multiplicity of arguments to break a false dilemma.
All we need is one "feasible" alternative to break a dilemma.
Old Pierre was a Huguenot............and not well received within his own circles..........he also liked to play mind games with all this stuff.
The overwhelming majority of the entries were devoted to individual people, whether historical or mythical, but some articles treated religious beliefs and philosophies. Many of the more controversial ideas in the book were hidden away in the voluminous footnotes, or they were slipped into articles on seemingly uncontroversial topics.
Old Pierre himself was a conundrum of emotions
The rigor and skeptical approach demonstrated in the Dictionary influenced many thinkers of the Enlightenment, including Denis Diderotand the other Encyclopédistes, David Hume, and George Berkeley. Bayle delighted in pointing out contradictions between theological tenets and the supposedly self-evident dictates of reason. He used the evidence of the irrationality of Christianity to emphasize that the basis of Christianity is faith in God and divine revelation. But at the same time He sought to promote religious tolerance, and argued strongly against inflexible and authoritarian application of religious articles of faith. This led to a bitter argument with his fellow French ProtestantPierre Jurieu.
Choose who you wish to believe........as for me and my house, We believe the Word of God